Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Lands Falcon 9 Rocket At Cape Canaveral (planetary.org)

Posted by samzenpus on from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

Rei writes: At 8:40 PM today, SpaceX successfully launched and relanded the first stage of its Falcon 9 rocket at Cape Canaveral, as well as delivering to orbit the last portion of ORBCOMM's communication satellite constellation. This also marks SpaceX's return to flight and the first launch of the "Full Thrust" Falcon 9 v1.1 with densified (extremely chilled) propellants. The company will now shift its efforts toward catching up on its backlog, investigating and refurbishing its landed first stage, and preparing for the maiden flight of the Falcon Heavy rocket this spring. Congratulations to everyone at SpaceX!

13 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. now on to the next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many times can they reuse the rocket?

    1. Re:now on to the next question by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If nothing else I'm sure they could do "liability only" insurance for early re-launches, which should be relatively cheap since they're launching the things out over the ocean. I'm sure there's plenty of people who would be eager to get their uninsured payloads into orbit at half or less of the launch cost, considering that for many satellites the launch is by far the most expensive part. Even if they had to pay in advance and just take their chances they stand a good chance of coming out ahead.

      As such, I imagine the insurance agencies would be more than happy to step in quickly, and be the ones that rake in the profit. They play the long game after all, with a scrupulous eye to the odds.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Solid ground landing by HairyNevus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how much of this was due to learning from the past misses and updating to version 1.1, and how much was from deciding to land on the ground and not on a barge at sea. Hell, learning from past misses and deciding not to land on a barge might be the same thing.

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    1. Re:Solid ground landing by Mateorabi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I didn't think either of the barge failures were due to the relative motion of the landing site? Wasn't one insufficient hydraulic fluid in an open-loop system, the other a sticking valve not responding quickly enough and making the control loop unstable?

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    2. Re:Solid ground landing by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There were some comments made about the entire barge being pushed down into the water by the force of the rocket landing.

      That said I don't think the barge was ever the target landing location. I think the barge was necessary to get regulatory approval to come in over the land. Prove you can hit your target first where you won't hurt / destroy anything then you can try it here.

    3. Re:Solid ground landing by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The barge is required for recovery after GTO. You can only do a return-to-launchpad for lightweight GEO deliveries. Lightweight GEO deliveries will require the barge, as will heavy GEO deliveries. Return to launchpad is going to be pretty rare, typically only for end-of-life rockets running high risk or lightweight payloads. Just a guess but I'd say 70%+ of recoverable launches will be on a barge.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Solid ground landing by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "primary direction" is most certainly *NOT* up; the first stage gets many times as far downrange as it gets in altitude. However, the boost-back burn is indeed pretty much entirely horizontal; the rocket is high enough that there's very little air, and what little there is, the mostly-empty stage attempts to ride by angling itself as a (really bad) lifting surface.

      So yes, the rocket is forced to largely reverse its forward velocity. However, with its tanks empty and no second stage or payload, it weighs very little. Three of it's nine engines are quite sufficient to turn it around and put it on course for home.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  3. land provides more options for workarounds by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With airplanes, a carrier landing is quite a bit more difficult than landing on land. You can land with a stuck rudder OR with a stuck elevator OR you can land on an aircraft carrier. I wouldn't want to try to land on an aircraft carrier with a stuck rudder.

    I don't know the details of the SpaceX controls, but I suppose it's possible that a glitch like a stuck valve would be easier to work around with a larger landing zone, and one that's not moving. In theory, with the stuck valve they might have had the option of manipulating the controls differently to land 300 yards away and upright.

    1. Re:land provides more options for workarounds by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason that a carrier landing is harder is because the runway is shorter. With a vertical landing vehicle, it's a non-issue.

      That said, I'm pretty sure that Space X's position is - if something's stuck, you can't land.

    2. Re:land provides more options for workarounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The engines are two or three times too powerful to hover. It has to aim for velocity and altitude to reach zero at the same time. There is simply no room to fudge factor for sticky valves. That caused it to not be vertical when it reached zero altitude, and all a bigger landing area would have done was keep the broken bits from falling into the water. But yeah, the barge landing would be harder and would have been good to see if it weren't for that struts thing.

  4. Re:Congratulations to the SpaceX team! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the Falcon 9 is about on par in lifting power with the Delta IV and low-end configurations of the Atlas V, and Falcon Heavy will be competing with Delta IV Heavy more than anything else.

    Actually the Falcon Heavy is aiming to be much heavier at 53,000 kg to LEO vs 29,000 kg for the Delta IV Heavy, which probably means it can match capacity in reusable mode. Imagine both boosters (essentially headless stage 1s) and first stage returning to land like one-two-three and ready to get back in action. Somebody at ULA is going to have kittens when they realize where SpaceX is going.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Re:Congratulations to the SpaceX team! by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It doesn't take anywhere near losing half of a rocket's capacity to be reusable. Once the lower stage has burned through its propellant and lost its upper stages it's incredibly light and thus very easy to change its direction.

    --
    That was either the start of something bad or the end of something stupid.
  6. Re:Congratulations by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I literally cringed when I heard the USA chants... leave it to USAians to make it about them when so many from many countries worked so hard to make it a reality.

    What are you babbling about? SpaceX manufactures the entire rocket in Hawthorne, California. All of the metal bending, all of the welding, everything except a handful of chips is made in that plant. There were zero other countries involved in designing, building, launching, and performing the only first stage rocket recovery in history. Due to ITAR, all SpaceX employees are US citizens or permanent residents (green card holders). The vast majority are citizens. Even the company that paid for the launch, Orbcomm, is a US company.

    In a time when such nationalism is frowned upon, their USA chant was entirely justified. It was solely a US effort, and solely a US success.